dsayers Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 One of the first steps to wisdom is to call things by their proper names. Those who wish to enslave you will often as an attempt to increase efficiency/reduce risk try to alter your reality to make you more amenable to their advances. We think in words, so to alter words is to potentially alter thought. This is probably the single highest yield:effort. Let us compile a list of common words and phrases that are used to pass evil off as virtue in an attempt to help us all be resistant to this clever ploy. All submissions/revisions/corrections welcome. I will try to maintain it as able. arrest - assault citizen - person; refers to a person based on the false claim of ownership somebody else has placed over them Constitution - document; commonly used as proof of something despite being select inconsistent words of select individuals democracy - mob rule human nature - normalizing evil; Often used as an ex post facto justification for evil that isn't actually innate in humans. Note: Not propaganda when referring to things which are innate in humans. imprison - rape law - legislation; Used to make commands backed by threats of violence appear binding, as in the law of gravity. national debt - enslavement of the unborn public sector - coercive sector; area of human interaction predicated on theft/involuntary participation. public school - government school right - amoral behavior; Often contrasted by "privilege" to feign steadfastness. However it is only used to describe items of contention despite denoting incontestability. Also used to discourage action opposing contention out of disbelief that anybody could take away a "right." taxation - theft war - genocide; Commonly misused as addressing unwanted behavior when in fact it attacks people.
alexqr1 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38182-a-new-dictionary-for-the-world-we-live-in/
PatrickC Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 This is the fundamental foundation of philosophy in my opinion. Particularly in this age of relativism, which thrives on complicating and mischaracterising the correct definitions of words. You have highlighted some of the best ones of course. But there are so many instances of people using antonyms as their definition in all kinds of conversation and debate. This is a habit that has been picked up by our culture that seeks to undermine philosophy. Sophists are the most obvious example, such as Obama, who is a genius at it frankly. One correction.. war = geneocide
dsayers Posted January 9, 2014 Author Posted January 9, 2014 Added citizen and Constitution and altered war.
Daniel Unplugged Posted January 21, 2014 Posted January 21, 2014 Arrest - Kidnap/Abduct Spanking - Torturing children Public servant - Public parasite Public school - Government indoctrination centre Citizen - Slave Government - Slave masters Police squad - Abduction squad/Gang of armed thugs Democracy - Dictatorship of the majority Opinion - Blah Blah Blah Jibberish I don't know how to think Bull$%&* Just kill me now My brain don't work right lol Public education is a right - If you don't attend school you will be punished You have the right to vote - If you don't vote you will be punished (Australia) A cop signals you to pull over - A cop threatened to follow you home, kick in your door, assault and abduct you, and lock you in a cage, if you don't pull over Politics - Poly ticks/Many blood sucking parasites A cop asks for your name and address - A cop wants you to know that if he ever wants to kidnap you, he knows where you live Licence - Permission from your slave master High school graduate - Well indoctrinated person Law - Threat to kidnap God did it - I don't know what did it Statist - Person who wants me to rot in a cage if I don't give the government my money Capitalist - A necessary actor in a strong economy Socialist - A person who wants to make you their slave Mainstream economist - A person who knows little about economics Mainstream media - Government information censors Alternative media - The great hope of humankind The US bill of rights - A step in the right direction Average person - Zombie Austerity - A small decrease in the rate of increase of government spending that never happened Fiat money - Expensive toilet paper War - Mass murder Expert on television - Person brought in to push a known agenda Advertising - Attempt to get you to buy things you otherwise wouldn't Country - Slave compound Welfare - Stolen money Voluntarist/Ancap - Wonderful freedom and peace loving person
tjx Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 some questions war: if a country is attacked, as germany attacked poland. what is poland supposed to do? fiat currency: currency with value according to some authority. nickels, dimes and quarters are fiat currency. arrest: shall we have law enforcement or should we entirely protect ourselves? should there be no laws? yes, modern police have become militarized thugs. they have become violent oppressors. they have taken unlawful powers. the same as our socialist politicians. i have some issues with the constitution. eminent domain is the main one. but our politicians have discarded the constitution. obama is ruling mostly by fiat. the constitution never permitted things like 'the patriot act' or 'the war on drugs'. i think the founders made a big mistake when they made allowances for the constitution to be changed. it should have been fixed. unchangeable. peter schiff said that he wouldn't care if he didn't have the right to vote if someone was taking care of all his other rights. i agree with him. if our personal and property rights were always protected there would be no need to vote. no need to change federal laws. i'm arguing for states rights here. so was he. maybe i'm wrong, but i don't see how anarchy can work. i know there is spontaneous order. but there will also be spontaneous acts against that order.
alexqr1 Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 some questions war: if a country is attacked, as germany attacked poland. what is poland supposed to do? arrest: shall we have law enforcement or should we entirely protect ourselves? should there be no laws?War: Poland and Germany are only countries because of the initiation of force of their states upon it's "citizens", without the states there is no Germany or Poland. It would be just a group of people initiating force against another group of people.Arrest: There could be laws, dictated by the owner of the place. I for one would not go to a restaurant where shooting at people was allowed.maybe i'm wrong, but i don't see how anarchy can work. i know there is spontaneous order. but there will also be spontaneous acts against that order.I don't think any anarchist would disagree with you here, but how is that an argument against anarchism?
dsayers Posted January 22, 2014 Author Posted January 22, 2014 should there be no laws? Should there be no gravity? It's not something we can change, which is what law means. I suspect you meant to ask should there be no legislations. I would say yes, there should be no commands backed by threats of violence. The purpose of this thread is to improve the precision of our thoughts. i have some issues with the constitution. eminent domain is the main one. but our politicians have discarded the constitution. obama is ruling mostly by fiat. the constitution never permitted things like 'the patriot act' or 'the war on drugs'. i think the founders made a big mistake when they made allowances for the constitution to be changed. it should have been fixed. unchangeable. But as you point out, it's fundamentally flawed as it purports to own all property (including people) within a geographical area. That's not the sort of thing worth preserving.
tjx Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 War: Poland and Germany are only countries because of the initiation of force of their states upon it's "citizens", without the states there is no Germany or Poland. It would be just a group of people initiating force against another group of people.Arrest: There could be laws, dictated by the owner of the place. I for one would not go to a restaurant where shooting at people was allowed.I don't think any anarchist would disagree with you here, but how is that an argument against anarchism? War: but how do you stop a large group of people from attacking a smaller group of people and taking whatever they want? Arrest: what if the proprietor wasn't capable enough to stop some people from attacking his customers? who would stop them? how could anyone stay in business if the strongest could always take what they want or just start shooting people? my point is that the right to self defense must be absolute, meaning that you must be free to hire protection if you need it. a community should be free to hire a group, such as a police force to protect them. Should there be no gravity? It's not something we can change, which is what law means. I suspect you meant to ask should there be no legislations. I would say yes, there should be no commands backed by threats of violence. The purpose of this thread is to improve the precision of our thoughts. But as you point out, it's fundamentally flawed as it purports to own all property (including people) within a geographical area. That's not the sort of thing worth preserving. but commands can be defensive. i think self defense is a sticking point that isn't being considered. throughout history people have lived in fear of some enemy overcoming their own geographical area. force shouldn't be initiated, but the best response to it may be force.
dsayers Posted January 22, 2014 Author Posted January 22, 2014 I don't think anybody's talking against self-defense. Of course you can choose to hire people to protect you. You would be wrong to call them police since that would not be voluntary and presumes a jurisdiction that violates self-ownership and property rights.
Usethem Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 One of the first steps to wisdom is to call things by their proper names. Those who wish to enslave you will often as an attempt to increase efficiency/reduce risk try to alter your reality to make you more amenable to their advances. We think in words, so to alter words is to potentially alter thought. This is probably the single highest yield:effort. Let us compile a list of common words and phrases that are used to pass evil off as virtue in an attempt to help us all be resistant to this clever ploy. All submissions/revisions/corrections welcome. I will try to maintain it as able. arrest - assault citizen - person; refers to a person based on the false claim of ownership somebody else has placed over them Constitution - document; commonly used as proof of something despite being select inconsistent words of select individuals democracy - mob rule human nature - normalizing evil; Often used as an ex post facto justification for evil that isn't actually innate in humans. Note: Not propaganda when referring to things which are innate in humans. imprison - rape law - legislation; Used to make commands backed by threats of violence appear binding, as in the law of gravity. national debt - enslavement of the unborn public sector - coercive sector; area of human interaction predicated on theft/involuntary participation. public school - government school right - amoral behavior; Often contrasted by "privilege" to feign steadfastness. However it is only used to describe items of contention despite denoting incontestability. Also used to discourage action opposing contention out of disbelief that anybody could take away a "right." taxation - theft war - genocide; Commonly misused as addressing unwanted behavior when in fact it attacks people. How about a better definition of "equality" too, as its one of the most tried and true carrots in the demagogue's arsenal? Maybe equality = non-aggression principle?
tjx Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 I don't think anybody's talking against self-defense. Of course you can choose to hire people to protect you. You would be wrong to call them police since that would not be voluntary and presumes a jurisdiction that violates self-ownership and property rights. but i'm asking if you think self-defense is violence. whether it's a group of people or a country, it doesn't matter. if you're saying that self-defense isn't violence, then i agree with you. then it would follow that defending an innocent is not violence either. all this is to say that sometimes the initiation of force isn't violence. it has to be taken into the context of the whole situation.
dsayers Posted January 23, 2014 Author Posted January 23, 2014 all this is to say that sometimes the initiation of force isn't violence. it has to be taken into the context of the whole situation. This is false. If person A is raping person B and person B fights back or person C intervenes, they are not INITIATING the use of force. The use of force had already been deployed. I'm running out of ways to point out the difference between force and the initiation of the use of force. Could you help me by elaborating on how I am being unclear? Also, countries do not exist and therefore do not have a self. Self only accurately describes people.
ThomasDoubts Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 some questions war: if a country is attacked, as germany attacked poland. what is poland supposed to do? fiat currency: currency with value according to some authority. nickels, dimes and quarters are fiat currency. arrest: shall we have law enforcement or should we entirely protect ourselves? should there be no laws? yes, modern police have become militarized thugs. they have become violent oppressors. they have taken unlawful powers. the same as our socialist politicians. i have some issues with the constitution. eminent domain is the main one. but our politicians have discarded the constitution. obama is ruling mostly by fiat. the constitution never permitted things like 'the patriot act' or 'the war on drugs'. i think the founders made a big mistake when they made allowances for the constitution to be changed. it should have been fixed. unchangeable. peter schiff said that he wouldn't care if he didn't have the right to vote if someone was taking care of all his other rights. i agree with him. if our personal and property rights were always protected there would be no need to vote. no need to change federal laws. i'm arguing for states rights here. so was he. maybe i'm wrong, but i don't see how anarchy can work. i know there is spontaneous order. but there will also be spontaneous acts against that order. I would say: Polish citizens should flee or defend themselves. They should call for aid. Law Enforcement should enforce the law and the law should be thou shalt not agress against, nor violate the rights of others. They should also be subject to competition. A problem with the constitution being written in stone is that I think women and blacks have the same rights as I do. Emminent domain, as you rightfully point out is another. Most of all, as demonstrated throughout history, political power is most attractive to people who want to exersize that power. Power corrupts. I'd rather live in a world with a minimalist Federal Government and have 50 laboratories of innovation to pick from, than live in the world as it is. But I'd also rather live in a world with unregulated, unbounded and infinite innovation, than in one with only 50 regulated laboratories to pick from.
tjx Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 This is false. If person A is raping person B and person B fights back or person C intervenes, they are not INITIATING the use of force. The use of force had already been deployed. I'm running out of ways to point out the difference between force and the initiation of the use of force. Could you help me by elaborating on how I am being unclear? Also, countries do not exist and therefore do not have a self. Self only accurately describes people. If person A is raping person B and person B fights back or person C intervenes, they are not INITIATING the use of force. i agree with that. in the case of the rape, if a person that is able did NOTHING to help, that person is being violent to the one in need. to stand and watch or to leave the scene is being violent. Also, countries do not exist tell that to the n. koreans that are held against their will. you might not accept that they exist but most of the rest of world certainly does. Self only accurately describes people. everyone describes the defense of their country as 'self-defense' because they usually identify with their country. that's all that's meant. poland was attacked by germany. did the polish people have the right to defend against germans that were invading their country? self defense is natural law. everything and everyone has a right to defend itself from attack. initiating force in defense can not be called violence. at least not accurately. I would say: Polish citizens should flee or defend themselves. They should call for aid. Law Enforcement should enforce the law and the law should be thou shalt not agress against, nor violate the rights of others. They should also be subject to competition. A problem with the constitution being written in stone is that I think women and blacks have the same rights as I do. Emminent domain, as you rightfully point out is another. Most of all, as demonstrated throughout history, political power is most attractive to people who want to exersize that power. Power corrupts. I'd rather live in a world with a minimalist Federal Government and have 50 laboratories of innovation to pick from, than live in the world as it is. But I'd also rather live in a world with unregulated, unbounded and infinite innovation, than in one with only 50 regulated laboratories to pick from. Polish citizens should flee or defend themselves. They should call for aid. yes, they should be free to act as they deem necessary. Law Enforcement should enforce the law and the law should be thou shalt not agress against, agree. A problem with the constitution being written in stone is that I think women and blacks have the same rights as I do. the constitution had no laws against blacks or women. the right to vote was metered by the states, not the constitution. frederic douglass a former black slave who was hired to write that the constitution was pro slavery, could not do it. after he read it, he said the constitution was an anti-slavery document. Most of all, as demonstrated throughout history, political power is most attractive to people who want to exersize that power. Power corrupts. yes, power attracts the psychos. the framers knew that and did their best to limit federal power. but they didn't do it well enough. the constitution should have been made unchangeable. let the people vote with their feet in the 50 states. if they don't like what one state is doing, they can move to another. all the while their personal and property rights should be eternally protected by the constitution. I'd rather live in a world with a minimalist Federal Government and have 50 laboratories of innovation to pick from, than live in the world as it is. But I'd also rather live in a world with unregulated, unbounded and infinite innovation, then what you want is really the free market. free market capitalism. and the free market works best when it has the protection of common law. what we had would have worked very well if we wouldn't have fiddled with it. but no, the meddlers are always trying to 'do good'. of course it always ends up the opposite.
alexqr1 Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 War: but how do you stop a large group of people from attacking a smaller group of people and taking whatever they want?You can't, but the less incentives the larger group of people has the less possibility there is that this will happen. Also, if the incentives of the smaller group are in place, it is more likely that the market will provide a solution. This is true for an anarchistic world as it is for a statist one, but the incentives are better aligned in a situation of freedom and anarchy.Arrest: what if the proprietor wasn't capable enough to stop some people from attacking his customers? who would stop them?Well this is like saying what if the restaurant owner was not able to produce good food? Who would eat there then, and why should someone else be forced to produce good food for the restaurant?Maybe the owner should had not started a restaurant business. So if the proprietor is not able to protect the customers how does it follow that others, not involved int the interaction, must provide security?Besides, in a free society this would also create an incentive to come up with efficient solutions. One idea might be a firm that specializes in recovering from the attackers for a percentage of what is recovered, this would lower the incentives to attack. That is just one solution, the market would provide many and the best would stick.how could anyone stay in business if the strongest could always take what they want or just start shooting people? my point is that the right to self defense must be absolute, meaning that you must be free to hire protection if you need it. a community should be free to hire a group, such as a police force to protect them.I would agree, except that you don't hire the police, hiring implies mutual agreement and there is no such thing with the police. I'd agree that a community is free to hire a group to protect them.i agree with that. in the case of the rape, if a person that is able did NOTHING to help, that person is being violent to the one in need. to stand and watch or to leave the scene is being violentYou are not considering the implicit contradiction. In order to make the person help, you would have to initiate force against him. You are making someone responsible for someone else's actions here. The initiation of force is the positive action of one person using force in an otherwise non-violent interaction.tell that to the n. koreans that are held against their will. you might not accept that they exist but most of the rest of world certainly does.And this is an argument against anarchism? N. Korea is certainly not an anarchist paradise.poland was attacked by germany. did the polish people have the right to defend against germans that were invading their country?self defense is natural law. everything and everyone has a right to defend itself from attack. initiating force in defense can not be called violence. at least not accuratelyI agree that the polish people have the right to defend against germans. There is no initiating force in defense. Defense may be violent but it certainly is not the initiation of force.
dsayers Posted January 23, 2014 Author Posted January 23, 2014 tell that to the n. koreans that are held against their will. you might not accept that they exist but most of the rest of world certainly does. So if most of the rest of the world thought dogs were cats, this would make it so? everyone describes the defense of their country as 'self-defense' because they usually identify with their country. that's all that's meant. You can't be imprecise when you're talking about definitions. Especially in a thread about just that. I recommend you partake of Stef's Introduction to Philosophy series. It's long, but is very helpful in helping to get past these sorts of basic thinking errors.
tjx Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 You can't, but the less incentives the larger group of people has the less possibility there is that this will happen. Also, if the incentives of the smaller group are in place, it is more likely that the market will provide a solution. This is true for an anarchistic world as it is for a statist one, but the incentives are better aligned in a situation of freedom and anarchy.Well this is like saying what if the restaurant owner was not able to produce good food? Who would eat there then, and why should someone else be forced to produce good food for the restaurant?Maybe the owner should had not started a restaurant business. So if the proprietor is not able to protect the customers how does it follow that others, not involved int the interaction, must provide security?Besides, in a free society this would also create an incentive to come up with efficient solutions. One idea might be a firm that specializes in recovering from the attackers for a percentage of what is recovered, this would lower the incentives to attack. That is just one solution, the market would provide many and the best would stick.I would agree, except that you don't hire the police, hiring implies mutual agreement and there is no such thing with the police. I'd agree that a community is free to hire a group to protect them.You are not considering the implicit contradiction. In order to make the person help, you would have to initiate force against him. You are making someone responsible for someone else's actions here. The initiation of force is the positive action of one person using force in an otherwise non-violent interaction.And this is an argument against anarchism? N. Korea is certainly not an anarchist paradise.I agree that the polish people have the right to defend against germans. There is no initiating force in defense. Defense may be violent but it certainly is not the initiation of force. incentives aren't protection from the possibility of attack. and it's not that others must be forced to provide security for a restaurant. the point is that using force in defense is not violence. I'd agree that a community is free to hire a group to protect them. that was my point. You are not considering the implicit contradiction. In order to make the person help, you would have to initiate force against him. i never said anything about forcing anyone to help. And this is an argument against anarchism? N. Korea is certainly not an anarchist paradise. it was not an argument against anarchism. it was an argument that countries do indeed exist. I agree that the polish people have the right to defend against germans. good. There is no initiating force in defense. my argument is that sometimes there is. for that and other reasons "the initiation of force" is not an accurate definition of violence. Defense may be violent but it certainly is not the initiation of force. if someone that you know to be innocent is about to be attacked and in your estimation the only thing that will save him/her is force, would you consider the use of force violence? So if most of the rest of the world thought dogs were cats, this would make it so? so if the rest of the world saw a cat and you didn't, it wouldn't exist? You can't be imprecise when you're talking about definitions. Especially in a thread about just that. my intention is to get to an accurate definition first, and a precise one second. accuracy is most important than precision. I recommend you partake of Stef's Introduction to Philosophy series. It's long, but is very helpful in helping to get past these sorts of basic thinking errors. a condescending recommendation that i didn't ask for. and your assumption about my 'thinking errors' is just that. an assumption.
ThomasDoubts Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 I would not call self defense or intervening to protect the innocent, violence. It might be a violent act, like shooting an intruder is a kind of violent act, but it's justified and therefore more appropriately called self defense. Wikipedia defines violence: "using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." Violence can be a used to do something heroic; ie: preventing the rape of a child. In all cases though, it should only be used as a last resort. A problem with the constitution being written in stone is that I think women and blacks have the same rights as I do. the constitution had no laws against blacks or women. the right to vote was metered by the states, not the constitution. frederic douglass a former black slave who was hired to write that the constitution was pro slavery, could not do it. after he read it, he said the constitution was an anti-slavery document. Most of all, as demonstrated throughout history, political power is most attractive to people who want to exersize that power. Power corrupts. yes, power attracts the psychos. the framers knew that and did their best to limit federal power. but they didn't do it well enough. the constitution should have been made unchangeable. let the people vote with their feet in the 50 states. if they don't like what one state is doing, they can move to another. all the while their personal and property rights should be eternally protected by the constitution. I'd rather live in a world with a minimalist Federal Government and have 50 laboratories of innovation to pick from, than live in the world as it is. But I'd also rather live in a world with unregulated, unbounded and infinite innovation, then what you want is really the free market. free market capitalism. and the free market works best when it has the protection of common law. what we had would have worked very well if we wouldn't have fiddled with it. but no, the meddlers are always trying to 'do good'. of course it always ends up the opposite. Let's not give the meddlers anything to meddle with. The constitution also says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's been violated in an uncountable number of ways, and they didn't even need to change it. An unchangable constitution doesn't make it so that it can't be violated. It's just done outside of the law, or with irrational judicial reasoning, or executive order, or however else the bill of rights is violated daily. Look at the NSA. You're right about the constitution. I was just remarking on the "All men are created equal"(declaration, I know) not being lived up to for some time. In fact if you include children as part of mankind, it still hasn't been realized. Slavery would have been a deal breaker issue if it were in the constitution, so pragmatism left the issue for another day. The Civil War was a monsterous betrayal of states rights. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, governments always break their own laws; they wouldn't be governments if they didn't. One of my favorite quotes from Jefferson, for whom I have profound respect: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. In other words, only "Thou Shalt Not's" concerning violation of another man's rights are just. I see no reason a profit seeking entity couldn't enforce this. Should they do anything bad, I leave and they lose money. Competition regulates for effeciency and reflects the will of the consumer. Yes I want free market capitalism, but who's to say how it's best protected. You'd have to have free market capitalism to find out What I do know is that governments have never protected free market capitalism. To do so would be to allow free competition in law enforcement, in national defense, in education, etc. The government outlaws and crowds out competition in anything it does, because it sucks at everything and the goal is rarely to even do it well. If it doesn't do anything, voila, anarchism with free market solutions. At the end of the day, government is force and force is a poor substitute for reason. That's my two minute elevator pitch from a States Rights Libertarian turned Anarchist. Tell me I've won you over Apologies for thread-jacking on a tangent
PatrickC Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 Is tjx still changing the definitions of words.. Leftist sophist!
tjx Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 Is tjx still changing the definitions of words.. Leftist sophist! i'm the farthest thing from leftist you've ever seen. ad hominem all ya got? Is tjx still changing the definitions of words.. Leftist sophist! here's political spectrum quiz. we're on the honor policy, but i'll bet you nearly any amount that i'm to right of where you are. i have my score posted on another website. it's just a few minutes. take it and tell me what you scored and i'll tell you my score. i guess you don't know a leftist when you see one. http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html
PatrickC Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 Nah, Ive been here long enough to know a leftist that wants to change the definitions of words.. Go ahead and attempt your buffoonery.. I will be behind you with my foot held out as you trip over it.
tjx Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 Nah, Ive been here long enough to know a leftist that wants to change the definitions of words.. Go ahead and attempt your buffoonery.. I will be behind you with my foot held out as you trip over it. but i do know an absolutist when i see one. why don't you take the political quiz and see where you stand? bet you're further to the left than you think.
PatrickC Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 I don't debate relativists, much like leftists, feminists or creationists.. And I recommend that to the whole board for what it's worth.
tjx Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 I don't debate relativists, much like leftists, feminists or creationists.. And I recommend that to the whole board for what it's worth. I don't debate relativists, you didn't debate anything. much like leftists, feminists or creationists. cop out. And I recommend that to the whole board for what it's worth. not much.
alexqr1 Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 i never said anything about forcing anyone to help.So person A is raping person B and person C who is capable of helping does not help. According to your statement, person C is being violent towards person A? If that is the case, the only way to stop C's violence towards A is to force him to help.it was not an argument against anarchism. it was an argument that countries do indeed exist.Only conceptually in the same sense that a society exists. In reality, it is a group of people claiming ownership over a geographical area and its inhabitants.There is no initiating force in defense.my argument is that sometimes there is. for that and other reasons "the initiation of force" is not an accurate definition of violence.if someone that you know to be innocent is about to be attacked and in your estimation the only thing that will save him/her is force, would you consider the use of force violence?Sure, If I had to be violent to defend myself or someone else from the initiation of force then I would not be initiating force but I would still be violent.Maybe this part is just semantics though.
tjx Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 So person A is raping person B and person C who is capable of helping does not help. According to your statement, person C is being violent towards person A? If that is the case, the only way to stop C's violence towards A is to force him to help. Only conceptually in the same sense that a society exists. In reality, it is a group of people claiming ownership over a geographical area and its inhabitants. Sure, If I had to be violent to defend myself or someone else from the initiation of force then I would not be initiating force but I would still be violent. Maybe this part is just semantics though. If that is the case, the only way to stop C's violence towards A is to force him to help. i'm not trying to force a solution. i'm just saying that not helping when you are able to help, is violating the person being raped. In reality, it is a group of people claiming ownership over a geographical area and its inhabitants. but the US constitution never claimed ownership over its inhabitants. just the opposite. people were free to leave any time they wished. not only that, they could take all their property with them. back then, the government wasn't allowed to limit anything you decided to bring with you. you can't leave with more than $600,000 without the government taxing you. Sure, If I had to be violent to defend myself or someone else from the initiation of force then I would not be initiating force but I would still be violent. i'm saying that measured aggression against violence, isn't violence. yes, semantics is a problem when we're striving to be accurate in our definitions.
dsayers Posted January 24, 2014 Author Posted January 24, 2014 This is why I stopped having discussions with tjx. All I see is conclusions with no examination, even if the face of rigorous counterarguments. It's like having a discussion with a tape and rewinding it to see if your arguments had any effects on the content on the tape. If person C HAS to intervene or be deemed immoral, this is a positive obligation on C, which disposes of his consent, which is immoral. It is an unsustainable position and therefore must be revised to conform to the real world. Ignoring this because it conflicts with your prejudice is bigoted confirmation bias and has no place in a philosophical evaluation.
alexqr1 Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 but the US constitution never claimed ownership over its inhabitants. just the opposite. people were free to leaveSure it does, It imposes rules an laws on people who have not previously agreed to those rules.The fact that the constitution was a lot more permissive than the current laws in the US in irrelevant. I don't need my neighbors or you or even my parents or wives to unilaterally come up with a document that that describes what I am allowed and not allowed to do and even what I must do, no matter how permissive it is. If they did that and they were willing to violently impose those rules then they would be claiming ownership over me.
tjx Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 Sure it does, It imposes rules an laws on people who have not previously agreed to those rules. The fact that the constitution was a lot more permissive than the current laws in the US in irrelevant. I don't need my neighbors or you or even my parents or wives to unilaterally come up with a document that that describes what I am allowed and not allowed to do and even what I must do, no matter how permissive it is. If they did that and they were willing to violently impose those rules then they would be claiming ownership over me. I don't need my neighbors or you or even my parents or wives to unilaterally come up with a document that that describes what I am allowed and not allowed to do and even what I must do, no matter how permissive it is. if you had lived in a land that was constantly plundered and overrun by foreign armies, you'd be begging for a constitution that protected your life, liberties, rights and property. you couldn't have found a place on earth that was as good to live as the USA a hundred years ago..
dsayers Posted January 24, 2014 Author Posted January 24, 2014 1) Setting up and legitimizing an ever-present aggressor to protect against a potential threat that nobody would accept is a logical inconsistency. 2) The people who set up and legitimized an ever-present aggressor had just fought to free themselves from the same, which is all the proof you need that it was flawed. 3) If everybody was begging for somebody else to do something, there would be nobody left to do anything, making this claim unsustainable. 4) The claim that if people need something, they will only get it if somebody forces it upon them has no logical basis. 5) The idea that people who would need and people who would provide are fundamentally different is inaccurate. 6) Saying the Constitution protects that which it violates is a deliberate lie. 7) Saying something is the best option does not mean it is a moral one. Please, this weak attempt at an argument might fly in the youtube comments section of a pro-state video, but you'll have to up your game if you wish for you or your arguments to be taken seriously in a place like this.
alexqr1 Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 if you had lived in a land that was constantly plundered and overrun by foreign armies, you'd be begging for a constitution that protected your life, liberties, rights and property.OK, so are if I were begging for it I'd willfully agree to it and there would be no need to impose it upon me. Just like going to McDonalds and buying a meal.Not to mention that this claim does not address the fact that the constitution is a tool to claim ownership over people living in a geographical area. you couldn't have found a place on earth that was as good to live as the USA a hundred years ago..This is totally irrelevant and subjective.3) If everybody was begging for somebody else to do something, there would be nobody left to do anything, making this claim unsustainable.This is a great point.
Recommended Posts